The PEP texting intervention showed no evidence of an impact on science attainment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i0negligible
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i0 There is no evidence that the intervention affected science attainment (ES -0.013, 95% CI -0.048 to 0.022). → Miller 2016
Evidence¶
Miller 2016¶
Miller, S., Davison, J., Yohanis, J., Sloan, S., Gildea, A. and Thurston, A. (2016). Texting Parents: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581121
q3 · i0 · causal · r2
Results table of the cluster RCT reporting the science outcome for 4,726 analysed pupils: an effect size of "-0.013" with a confidence interval spanning zero, reported as 0 months of additional progress.
"Science 4,726 -0.013 (-0.048, 0.022) 0"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The small positive English attainment effect (ES 0.033) is at risk of bias from missing baseline data and cannot be reliably concluded — related
- Texting parents about tests, homework and lesson content produced a small positive effect on maths attainment (ES 0.067) in a cluster RCT — related
- Texting parents reduced pupil absenteeism (ES -0.054, about half a day) even though no texts concerned attendance — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.